Tom Humes

Democrats want the government to regulate the economy and keep their hands off of morality.

Republicans want the government to regulate morality and keep their hands off the economy.

Libertarians (that’s me) want the government to be small, local, and keep their hands off of everything.

Okay…let’s see…I have to do things in order or I get really confused…

I know that the proposition of redistribution of wealth is not extreme. The problem is that it’s not the people who make $250,000 a year that are going to pay it. And it’s not the poor people who are going to pay it. It’s people like me and you, the lower to middle of the road, who buy goods and services from those who make $250,000 a year. What do you think the businesses are going to do when their costs increase from taxes? Just suck it up and pay it from their profits? No, they will pass along their costs to us in the form of lay offs and higher product prices. The poor won’t pay it because they will be receiving the tax money. The rich won’t pay it because they will be reimbursed by us. It’s us that will pay it. And I can’t afford it.

Your point about legal loop holes for those who make millions is an extremely good point. But I don’t think the answer is higher taxes – it’s elimination of taxes. If we switch from an income tax system to a fair tax system, those who now get out of paying taxes would start paying taxes, which means everyone, from the very wealthy who find loopholes to the drug dealers who live in the billion dollar underground economy. More taxes just means it’s harder for the middle class. A fair tax system would benefit everyone, around the board, not to mention the trillions of dollars that would flood our “tax friendly” country from around the globe.

You also have a very good point about abortion and the current ridiculous foster system, but I still can’t condone the act. We don’t shoot terminal cancer patients in the head just because there’s no cure yet. I agree we need a major overhaul of our foster system. Maybe if some of the money was rerouted from administrative costs that fund large governmental welfare programs it would be easier to keep track of our kids. Again – I am going to advocate for local and privatized solutions instead of nationalized and governmental solutions, especially for the education, birth control, and health care before a woman ends up pregnant.

I’m torn on the topic of health care. I do believe that health care should be included in the list of “unalienable rights” of man. I would say it falls under the “life” category. However, I can’t in my right mind fathom how our government, which is just so fiscally responsible as it is, is going to produce a system that would be more effective than a capitalist system which encourages competition. I’ve been on welfare. I know what government run health care is like. The quality is, as you are more aware than I, abysmal. Why pour money into a broken system? More money will not fix this. Privatization and competition, I think, will allow for economic growth instead of economic standstill as well as affording much higher quality care than could be allowed under a government system.

What do you think?

(Can I assume I am the owner of the liberal/atheist BEST FRIEND title? Well too bad, I am taking it anyway! YAY!)

I agree that you may be taking the extreme to Obama’s policy. He is not proposing we redistribute the wealth of the rich to proportions that would eradicate the incentive to gain that wealth. He is proposing higher taxes on higher income brackets (which you know). We have wealthy (stingy) family that manage to evade paying taxes on literally millions of dollars by entirely legal loopholes. This may be a touch of the topic but the fact remains that the rich can both afford to pay a slightly higher tax and I believe that if it enables the middle and lower classes to keep a few thousand more in their wallet, so be it. That could be the difference between owning a car or loosing one to those in our bracket, which can lead to loss of a job and another on the dreaded welfare ticket.

Wow, this is not written nearly as well as it should be, this kids keep talking to me so I apologize for choppy thoughts.

I am going to move on to the pro-life and pro-death penalty question. I agree that these points are on different planes completely. I get the argument that if you think all life should be sacred and protected that your belief is a contradiction. I don’t think this applies anywhere. I know that is not your basis for your pro-life stance, so the point is moot.
You can flip that coin and that argument STILL doesn’t work. I for one, have slipped into the ugly realm of pro-choice for very unique reasons. I HATE and DESPISE the ACT of abortion. We are barbaric in our methods and it is a shameful, terrible act of destruction that occurs today. The reason for my newer pro-choice stance is that until we have massively improved the conditions for unwanted children, it is, in my humble opinion, a very incomplete process to force an unwanted pregnancy to term only to have that child fall into the current foster process. There must be a plan for the well being of that unwanted infant through its entire childhood before I can condone forced continuation of pregnancy. We also need to make available birth control and woman’s health clinics PRIOR to a pregnancy. This is where universal health care comes into play. YOU are already paying for welfare and free health care to the lower class, yet YOU can not go to the doctor. This is madness. Everyone should have the ability to see a doctor BEFORE it is an emergency. Every other country that is as developed as the US has this sort of system in place, it obviously works and is well tested.

And again I am way off topic and not making much sense, lol. I am off to take these kids to the park so they can get out of my rear!!

I don’t think I have an extreme idea about socialism. I know the difference between communism, Marxism, and what’s going on in our country right now. I think my views on socialism are seen as “extreme” because I don’t like even the little bit of socialist policy we have.

“Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor” is exactly what he’s going to do. Even though it’s just an extra 2% after $250,000, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It doesn’t matter if it’s 2% or 20% or 100%, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It doesn’t matter if he goes around knocking on doors or making people give it with their taxes, it’s still taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Now you can say “2% isn’t very much,” or “It’s only those who are very rich,” or something, but it’s not really accurate to say it’s not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, because it is. All that extra tax money (from the rich) is going straight into entitlement programs (to the poor).

I think where you and I disagree is not in principle but in practicality. I absolutely agree that those born rich have greater advantages. I absolutely agree that the American dream is a myth, that without some form of assistance someone born poor would not be able to do anything. I also absolutely agree that the rich should help the poor. Where I disagree is what “help” means, and how “help” should come. You and I basically believe in CHARITY – the difference comes in the practical application of that charity. You believe that the government should control the distribution of charitable goods (which in this case is money) and I believe that private citizens should control the distribution of charitable goods (which I believe should be a combination of money, educational services, and accountability). I am all for localized and privatized solutions, where socialism is a nationalized and governmental solution.

When Justin and I were almost evicted from our apartment a year and a half ago, we had no money for food. No food, zero money, and he didn’t have a job. He went and got a job waiting tables but it would be a week or two before we would have any money at all. So we went to our local church to ask for help. They had piles and piles and piles of food just waiting for someone to need it. No one ever came.

I believe that every person who has the ability should give 10% of their income to some sort of charity, whether it is a clean water program, food program, church, school, whatever. The advantages to “welfare” (charity) being privatized are very strong points for me.

One, we would have accountability of where the money is going. I am not naïve enough to think that everyone on welfare is a lazy bum. I’ve been on welfare, my parents have been on welfare, and none of us are lazy bums. I recognize that the vast majority of people on welfare work very hard to provide for their families. But something is wrong when the money I pay into the welfare system goes to support someone’s drug habit, or pay for their $16,000 car note. There is (and can be) no accountability in a government run welfare system. In a private system, that lazy bum who pulls up to the private charity distribution center to collect his check in a brand new car wouldn’t be met with a smiling face. He would probably be met with a “Hell no, go sell your car!” People would be kept more accountable for how they spend the charitable money they get because the people in charge of the charity would be very aware of how much money they have and how much money is needed.

Two, people would get to decide how much to give. I have taken extra jobs JUST SO I can give money away. I would be able to do a lot more good if that money wasn’t already taken away for welfare by the government – which is known for being an extremely inefficient system when it comes to handling money. Too much is taken out for administrative costs and other miscellaneous money wasters before it’s ever seen by the people who need it.

Three, people could decide where their money goes. I know you and I don’t see eye to eye on abortion, but it makes me sick that money my family earns supports Planned Parenthood. Sick. How would you feel if the money you gave to welfare went to support Christian missionaries? Probably sick, because everyone should get to decide how their money is spent. If I had a choice, I would take back my money the government is spending on Planned Parenthood and send it to Charity: Water. But I have no say. And that is the very definition of socialism: When the government, not private citizens, decides how the private citizen’s money will be spent.

Four, people would be much more apt to have to go out and actually find a good enough job. For instance, I would be more than happy to babysit some woman’s kids at night so she could go back to school, get an associates or something, then get out and get a better paying job to help her out of her situation. In a private charity situation, you could donate more than just money – you could also donate time, goods, and services. But you would be sure that the people who took the money or goods or services or whatever were actually working and trying to improve their situation instead of what you have now, which is just a handout. It’s entirely different, more like Habitat for Humanity (which I love).

Five, a private charity could offer financial educational services that the government can’t. If I ran a private charity I would offer free Dave Ramsey classes and would REQUIRE that in order to get a check you take the class. Did you know that you can become a millionaire on $100 a month? That’s one plasma donation a week. Not hard stuff – but people don’t know. People don’t know how to manage their money. We want to live like rich people without being rich people. A private charity could make sure that we are really and truly teaching people how to fish instead of just giving them fish.

And you know, I would even be much more okay with the government saying, “We’re taking this 2% and we’re going to use it to subsidize private charities” as sort of a forced charitable giving. But when the government runs the charity (i.e., welfare) is when I have a real problem. It’s kind of thuggish when you think about it.

And when it comes to the subject of health care, my feelings are exactly the same. Privatize the charity. I mean, basically what we are talking about is the same thing. I just believe in personal freedom of choice when it comes to choosing how much to give and who to give it to. All welfare is is government mandated compassion. I think people are generally a lot more “good” than we give them credit for. I don’t believe the government should mandate my compassion.

Taxes were originally just supposed to be a way to pay for services received. The government was like a business that offered things – roads, military protection, etc – and private citizens paid for these things. Now, it’s not practical to actually pay per use (the ridiculous example of the toll sidewalk comes to mind) so we just tax on what you make. (Personally, I would like to see income tax abolished and replaced with a Fair Tax but that’s another subject for another time. ) But when the government started taking money from one class and giving it to another, it ceased to be a business and started to be a national charity – which is inefficiently run. And when the government is a national charity, you have socialism.

Now, when it comes to you it’s an entirely different story. You SHOULD get food stamps and government sponsored health care. Why? Because you are basically an employee of me, and all the citizens of the US. You aren’t technically employed by the federal government, but you are a volunteer in an organization that helps citizens. I’m okay with my tax dollars going to health care and food stamps for you – because, in a very technical and weird sense, you are my employee. If you were employed by a private company, if you were, say, a software engineer employed by Google, I would feel differently. Does that make sense?

I agree that something is drastically wrong. It sickens me that children IN THIS COUNTRY live in substandard housing on prepackaged foods. But I believe the answer is not more government interference, but less. If the government would leave my tax dollars alone, I would invest more until I was eventually able to donate a ton of money to charities like Farm to School to enable school aged children to eat natural, nutritious meals. But my money doesn’t get to come through me straight to Farm to School. It goes straight to the government, who takes out administrative costs and passes it along to anyone who “qualifies” (which is a joke) without regard to whether this system is actually better for people. And that’s why I think welfare – and all socialistic policies in our country – need to either have a serious overhaul or be eliminated completely. I think that these things have done nothing but keep poor people poor.

Thoughts?